"If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic," Bush snapped. "I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."
Though the Washington press corps sat mute before Bush's assertions, there was cause to challenge Bush on his hypocrisy. The Bush administration is responsible for slaughtering thousands of women and children in Afghanistan and Iraq "to achieve an objective."
For instance, early in the Iraq War, Bush authorized the bombing of a residential Baghdad restaurant because of faulty intelligence that Saddam Hussein might be having dinner there. The attack killed 14 civilians, including seven children. One mother collapsed when her decapitated daughter was pulled from the rubble.
Hundreds of other civilian deaths were equally horrific. Saad Abbas, 34, was wounded in an American bombing raid, but his family sought to shield him from the greater horror. The bombing had killed his three daughters ? Marwa, 11; Tabarek, 8; and Safia, 5 ? who had been the center of his life.
"It wasn't just ordinary love," his wife said. "He was crazy about them. It wasn't like other fathers." [NYT, April 14, 2003]
The horror of the war was captured, too, in the fate of 12-year-old Ali Ismaeel Abbas, who lost his two arms when a U.S. missile struck his Baghdad home. Ali's father, his pregnant mother and his siblings were all killed. As he was evacuated to a Kuwaiti hospital, becoming a symbol of U.S. compassion for injured Iraqi civilians, Ali said he would rather die than live without his hands.
For its part, the Bush administration has refused to tally the Iraqi civilians killed in the war, a number now estimated in the tens of thousands.
New Threats
At the Sept. 15 news conference, Bush also threatened to stop all interrogation of terrorism suspects if his demands on the Geneva Conventions weren't met.
"We can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward," Bush said. "The bottom line is ? and the American people have got to understand this ? that this program won't go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it's just not going to go forward."
Common Article III doesn't prohibit interrogating prisoners, but it does bar coercive tactics to elicit information. POWs are required to supply only their name, rank and serial number or comparable information.
The United States played a prominent role in establishing these standards, along with other rules of war. In addition, the U.S. Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment and U.S. law prohibits torture and other degrading treatment of detainees, though Bush has stipulated that he does not feel legally bound by those constraints.
Bush has argued that the "war on terror" is a new kind of war, justifying these extraordinary tactics. But military historians say the conflict is actually similar to many irregular wars fought over the centuries, including the anti-colonial wars in the 1950s and 1960s and Latin American "dirty wars" against leftist "terrorists" in the 1970s and 1980s.
In those conflicts, too, government security forces resorted to extensive use of torture, "disappearances" and detentions without trial.
The "inner-directed" Bush now is charting a similar future for the United States ? and getting increasingly petulant with those Americans who won't follow him.
Though the Washington press corps sat mute before Bush's assertions, there was cause to challenge Bush on his hypocrisy. The Bush administration is responsible for slaughtering thousands of women and children in Afghanistan and Iraq "to achieve an objective."
For instance, early in the Iraq War, Bush authorized the bombing of a residential Baghdad restaurant because of faulty intelligence that Saddam Hussein might be having dinner there. The attack killed 14 civilians, including seven children. One mother collapsed when her decapitated daughter was pulled from the rubble.
Hundreds of other civilian deaths were equally horrific. Saad Abbas, 34, was wounded in an American bombing raid, but his family sought to shield him from the greater horror. The bombing had killed his three daughters ? Marwa, 11; Tabarek, 8; and Safia, 5 ? who had been the center of his life.
The horror of the war was captured, too, in the fate of 12-year-old Ali Ismaeel Abbas, who lost his two arms when a U.S. missile struck his Baghdad home. Ali's father, his pregnant mother and his siblings were all killed. As he was evacuated to a Kuwaiti hospital, becoming a symbol of U.S. compassion for injured Iraqi civilians, Ali said he would rather die than live without his hands.
For its part, the Bush administration has refused to tally the Iraqi civilians killed in the war, a number now estimated in the tens of thousands.
New Threats
At the Sept. 15 news conference, Bush also threatened to stop all interrogation of terrorism suspects if his demands on the Geneva Conventions weren't met.
"We can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward," Bush said. "The bottom line is ? and the American people have got to understand this ? that this program won't go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it's just not going to go forward."
Common Article III doesn't prohibit interrogating prisoners, but it does bar coercive tactics to elicit information. POWs are required to supply only their name, rank and serial number or comparable information.
The United States played a prominent role in establishing these standards, along with other rules of war. In addition, the U.S. Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment and U.S. law prohibits torture and other degrading treatment of detainees, though Bush has stipulated that he does not feel legally bound by those constraints.
Bush has argued that the "war on terror" is a new kind of war, justifying these extraordinary tactics. But military historians say the conflict is actually similar to many irregular wars fought over the centuries, including the anti-colonial wars in the 1950s and 1960s and Latin American "dirty wars" against leftist "terrorists" in the 1970s and 1980s.
In those conflicts, too, government security forces resorted to extensive use of torture, "disappearances" and detentions without trial.
The "inner-directed" Bush now is charting a similar future for the United States ? and getting increasingly petulant with those Americans who won't follow him.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
